2026:HHC:4020 Kulkarni-the mother as such has taken the child away. A prayer has also been made to hand over the custody of the minor child to the petitioner, without any obstruction, interference or delay, in furtheranfce of the minor child’s welfare and in order to prevent further psychological emotional and educational harm and to direct the respondents to immediately facilitate and ensure the restoration and uninterrupted continuation of the minor child’s education at her previous school, thereby safeguarding her academic year and promptly reinstating he r education.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 was solemnized on 25.02.2012. From their wedlock, the girl child, namely, Yashika was born on 06.07.2017 in District Kangra near Dharamshala. The marriage as such was registered on 13.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), which would go on to show that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 resided at ‘Punj House’, Dhauladhar View, Post Office Dari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

3. Apparently, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 resided at different places, including Chandigarh, Mumbai, Banglore and then eventually, moved to Bangkok, Thailand, wherein the fpetitioner continues to reside.

4. From the pleadings, it would be clear that on 10.10.2025, respondent No. 3 had travelled to India alongwith the minor child. On return of respondent No. 3, post Diwali from India, she had been hospitalized from 25^th to 26^th November, 2025, which had led her brother to arr ive in Bangkok on 26.11.2025. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 had left Bangkok on 13.12.2025. From the pleadings itself, the petitioner is stated to have returned to Bangkok residence on 15.12.2025, when he discovered that all the child’s belongings had been removed from the house. It has also been averred in paragraph-17 that repeated efforts were made from 17.12.2025 to resolve the matter, but respondent No. 3 had changed her contact number and failed to respond to the proposals for counselling, leaving calls and messages from the petitioner and his family members, un-answered. Finally, on 29.12.2025, a conference call was arranged between the petitioner’s brother, respondent No. 3, her brother and her father. It hasf also been averred in paragraph-14 that the petitioner’s father had managed to speak with the father of respondent No. 3, who had stated that respondent No. 3 had reached Dharamshala and that he would speak to her and revert. After this communication, the father of respondent No. 3 did not respond to his calls/messages. In such circumstances, the petition has been preferred.

5. The matter was listed before the Vacation Judge on 13.02.2026, whereby it was observed that the maintainability of the writ petitioner has to be justified and the matter was listed for today.

6. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud & others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari & others, AIR 2019 SC 2318, to contend that the present petition as such would be maintainable.

7. We had occasion to consider the issue of maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition arising out of a dispute between the parents as such in Cr.W.P. No. 11 of 2023, titled as Saurav Rattan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 09.05.2025, in which reliance has also been placed by the father in that case also, upon the judgment in Tejaswini Gaud’s case (supra).

8. The said judgment is pertaining to the dispute as such, where the child was in custody of the brother and sis ter of the deceased wife and in such circumstances, the Apex Court had allowed the writ petition and directed that the right of the father to have the custody of the child, could not be held to be bad by upholding the judgment of the High Court.

9. Paragraph-18 of Tejaswini Gaud’s judgment can be taken into consideration, which reads as under:-

“18. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium thr